Backdoors that let cops decrypt messages violate human rights, EU court says

EinatYahav@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.world – 1029 points –
Backdoors that let cops decrypt messages violate human rights, EU court says
arstechnica.com
99

You are viewing a single comment

Ah my never ending love for EU . Is there a way to donate to the EU ?

Never idolise. Courts simply apply the laws, and good laws were likely written by inspired people and approved in a good political climate. These two conditions are not static.

In this case, the title is misleading. It's not the ECJ, it's the ECHR. The ECHR isn't part of the EU even if the EU and the EU members recognize it.

The ECHR rules according to the ECHR and not the EU regulations. The court can overturn EU regulation when violating the Human Rights.

I didn't open the article before, and you are right. The author of the article lives in Chicago; I think that Ars has no European writer to really understand what they are talking about.

Well, European Union member states have as a criteria of membership to also be members of the European Convention of Human Rights (which is the one the ECHR rules on), but that's about it.

I know i guess i wanna support so they have motivation to go forward. But yes you are absolutely right.

We are always on the brink of ruining everything nice that we have been slowly building.

You can read here about the plans of the European Commission to enable service operators to mass scan all the users' private messages in search of illegal materials.

The Commission is the same super-government body that signed privacy-oriented things like the General Data Protection Regulation.

Yeah i kinda did hear about it and was suprised. But figures can't have anything nice nowadays anyway

It's ECHR, it's not affiliated with the EU.

The fact of this article is funny - open cannibals joined ECHR, but the EU still can't because they really intend to follow obligations taken.

Until there's a common European military in existence, I wouldn't expect much. Come on, guys, even HRE had that. Sort of.

Move to EU and pay taxes there. Or buy European products, they pay taxes and some of it go to the EU.

Moving to EU is better option if you can afford it. You'll also get healthcare and other stuff.

They fund their political campaigns via taxes and put limits on spending and campaign seasons, just buy european-made instead if you're a fan.

Trust me, the UE have enough money. Please donate to your local homeless shelter instead :3

I do whenever i can

I say that because, well, I live near Brussel, I intimately know the insides of the european parliament. Corruption is rampant. Maybe not to the point of the US, but look up lobbying in the european institution and you will see what's up. The UE might seem progressive on the IT front but they are also the ones that forces us to sell public services to banks.

Don't. They already get way to much taxes and while these are the shining examples of what the EU should be and are beacon of hope...there are other utterly ridiculous laws and stupid regulations we have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be European and so on, but it's not the bright haven some people make it to be...

Can you name any ridiculous laws or regulations that negatively affect you? I have a hard time recalling any EU law or regulation that directly affects me without a good reason.

Also, can you name a nation without laws that negatively affect you or could be considered stupid?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/103530/eu-demands-speed-limiters-all-new-cars-know-rules-and-how-they-work

One of the most prevalent examples that affect me - it's a horrible system and most car makers are not able to do it properly, because the camera systems are not cheap enough to be good enough. Mercedes, BMW and so on do it relatively decent, but they've gotten so expensive, even the base models are out of my reach now.

This could go on for a while, but to make matters short: The basic idea is cool, but mandating it like they have makes it a nuisance and will make most people turn it off. All of the people I know that have a car that has that system turn it off immediately starting.

That doesn't seem like a stupid or ridiculous regulation, you even agree that the basic idea is cool. The issue here isn't the idea of the regulation, but the implementation by manufacturers. It will take time to get the implementation right and when it does the manufacturers will optimize the solution and the price will also come down. I don't think anyone goes "ABS makes cars so expensive", because the cost has been optimized.

The difference is, ABS was only mandatory after it was fully developed and actually safe. Same goes for the airbag. This is horseshit, same goes for the AI Rules, EU Cloud initiative, unified power grid and so on.

Airbags are STILL not safe, my guy – they can take your thumbs clean off.

What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You can pinch your dick in a zipper - are zippers unsafe? You can chocke in a tomato, are tomatoes unsafe? Just because something designed to safe you, can also kill you, doesn't make it unsafe. You can get seriously injured from a seat belt - if you consider seat belts unsafe, you should probably not leave you home ever again.

'murican being a 'murican as usual...

First, I don't need a car :D

Second, some reading comprehension would do you good.

I'm very proud to be German. How about you go f-yourself?

SSurely you jeSSt